Re: Balance

[Alan Zinn <azinn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:09 AM 1/3/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>Rehotshots@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 1/2/00 7:21:33 PM Central Standard Time,
>> droberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>>
>>  Balance in photographs is something else indeed to discuss. What is your
idea
>>  of balance.  Is it only compositional forms or dark and light or something
>>  else?  Is it symmetry?  You have good ideas keep sharing them.
>>
>>  Rehotshots@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>  Off topic?  not really, balance in a photograph is very important.
>> If
>>  > the balance is too formal it's just not that interesting.
>>
>
>> .  So, tell us about composition.
>>
>
>I can't tell anyone about composition.  We all know about the Golden Mean
and the
>Rule of Thirds etc.  We also, I suspect, find it very hard to apply those rules
>in panoramic photography with it's extreme aspect ratio.  The normal rules
apply
>infrequently here.  I have seen photos that violate these conventions that
people
>rave about and the next photo that does the same thing is reviled and
dismissed.
>For instance, in his Bodie series, Jan Faul has many panoramic images.  In many
>cases he has chosen to put the horizon right in the middle and have a heavy
form
>on one side and vacant space on the other, not normally accepted practices.
>These photos seem to earn universal approval.  I think if you do the same thing
>in a more conventional format you would get crucified.
>So there are different rules for panoramic photography I assume.
>
>The bottom line is, as with all photo work,  does it elicit a response in the
>viewer?  If it touches a chord, melodic or dissonant, then we assume the
photo is
>successful?
>
>--
>====================================================================
>      Don Roberts   *  Bittersweet Productions  *  Iowa City, IA
>                      *                                    *
>Of course, that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong. -- Dennis MIller
>====================================================================
>
>
>

Don & friends, 

  Over the holidays it seems the imbalanced have loosed their straps and
gotten at the keyboards. I hope they compose themselves soon.

Indeed panoramas have their own issues re balance.  It's not easy being
wide. One reflexively seeks balance either because of hard wiring or
cultural norms about how to look at 3-D space rendered as 2-D. Historically
artist have sought all sorts of tricks to manipulated 2-D space. Cubism is a
good example. Today our mind gets around cubist forms with ease. 
I can't think of a good reason for a picture to have formal balance if it
has some other internal logic.  It has to be a logic that is discoverable -
even if it is that there is no internal logic to the picture! Nonsensical
(that's an interesting word) images are nothing new. In my own work I am
sure I reflexively try to maintain a formal equilibrium. It's those darn
frames!  I am much more interested in getting other issues to add up. I work
in series so I find I can make two or several pictures related and create an
internal balance. Kind of like arranging furniture. 

Can we keep the on-topic ball rolling a little longer?

AZ
Y2Kahoutek - I want my money back!
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8874/

Lookaround Panoramic Cameras and Gallery:
http://www.keva.com/lookaround